Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

jedi...electronics are understandable....**** happens randomly all the time to us !

Note: watched tekken 3d last night and during 90mn the 3D was very stable no problem AT all on close ups, negative parallax.....so i really suspect that IMAX bluray for me at least are the ISSUE....
tekken during the last 30mn has a big fight scene with LOTS and LOTS of camera movements in 360°...yet the 3D was flawless.....so

i DID read on various thread people claiming that 3D issues can also be related to passive glasses - in the case of passive tv - as some are MUCH better at 3D than others !
this sound ridiculous as pasive glasses...all work the same and not a single reviewer has claimed that....yet people still say "changing glasses made a huge difference"...

Our eyes, from infancy, are trained to adjust focus based on true distance. When an object is close, your eyes "automatically" focus on it. When looking into the distance, your eyes quickly adjust to infinity. It is like your brain tells your eyes to change focusing distance before, or immediately as, you actually look at the new focusing distance.

While watching a movie in 3D, our brain believes the object to be at these various distances and attempts to focus as it has been trained to do. The problem is, the actual focus distance is constant, your TV. This puts great stress on the eyes, particularly with pop out 3D.

The best way to combat this is to sit as far from the TV as possible until your eyes learn to accept a constant focusing distance. In time, it is very likely your headaches will end.

good info mate...i understand....! THANK GOD 3D movie makers are doing less and LESS 3d POP OUT effects !!! maybe they understand that this is not the way to GO.
I did see that moving away is better for pop out effects...they seem to hurt less my eyes....
Problem is: my TV is already SMALL @ 42" and i sit at almost 3 meters; going back is a no go for me.

But like i said 90% of REAL 3D movies focus on SPACE & depth....and it is very much what we all prefer.

Saying that tahiti wave 3D - that i watched twice in 3D - really has some scenes were the FRAME in 3D seems wrong, negative parallax really bothers my eyes....and yes it was mainly during POP ups/foregrounds (plants - branches, and the many scenes where the camera is just on the water of the ocean.....) or rather Attempts of pop ups...and would say...

I have a Samsung HT-F4500/ZA system. I know no one else who even owns a 3D Blu-Ray player, so I can't test out the movie on anyone else's system. The movie in question is The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Right, for some reason in playback, it is showing the right frame slightly ahead of the left frame, when they should be identical, but shifted. I have read about this problem with stuff like Drive Angry and Rio, but that was on a Sony BDP-S590 player, and a firmware update was released that corrected the issue

^^^How do you like that BDP? I personally love it. Sony in particular did such a good job with their DVD upscaling on it. I am going to do a firmware check the next time I use it: I had trouble with how The Hobbit (first movie) looked in 3D.....gonna verify now. Thanks for the firmware notice.

PS. What idiot at Sony had a stroke and decided that their later BDP's needed to be shaped like a pyramid? Nice job marketing. LOL.....Aye yi yi.....

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

info: i saw some 3d demo scenes from the LG demo on my TV (from the youtube app directly) and confirm that my eyes did bother/hurt me when pop up took place : leaves, flowers, water....dunno it did not seem right....
i guess like said above, that the eyes need to adjust to pop up much harder than depth....ohh well no problem

When I first started watching 3D movies at home I got tremendous eye strain. To the point I felt like I had a sinus infection or something and sometimes my eyes would even tear up. This usually would happen if I watched more than an hour straight (so any movie really would do it).

After about 10 movies the issue became significantly less.

After about 20 I have never experienced the strain again.

So as was mentioned I think watching 3D (even on passive) still will be a challenge for many people of training eye muscles to do what they are not used to. But I think for many it will happen with some time.

As for the IMAX documentaries I have noticed that they tend to hold very deep 3D fields for long periods of time. The parallax separation is such that I often can't even resolve most of the close stuff even if I try my hardest. This in conjunction with their high contrast fairly shapr edged video style also makes IMAX harder on my eyes and I would almost say that whatever they do is like the 3D training process all over again.

Now that I have watched several IMAX documentaries multiple times (I love nature shows and in 3D it's just too much to resist) my eyes have grown accustomed. However I still don't look a the closest objects because I just can't resolve them. I have relegated them to being set pieces that I perceive so as to get lots of depth, but I never really look at. Maybe akin to out of focus items in 2D film shot with forced depth of field. You don't look at it, you just notice it.

The interesting thing I have seen several of the same IMAX documentaries in theaters and did not have the same problem. It may be that the separation plays out differently on the screen size and distance I am sitting at vs theaters?

I don't know...

But I do agree IMAX documentaries are harder on the eyes due to their extreme depth nature, however I think it's likely most people can get accustomed to it just like we get accustomed to 3D video in general.

the use of converged cameras which highly distorts the stereo alignment towards the corners of the screen

Converged cameras is what I thought of when I read the OP too. Most movies are shot with parallel cameras, Avatar being a notable exception. From what I can see, a lot of documentaries were shot with the cameras converged. In all these cases (including Avatar) I find the 3D image to be slightly difficult to view at times. As I understand it, it would unavoidably be so if you're looking anywhere in the image other than the center where the cameras converged. Everywhere else is more or less distorted. 3D from parallel cameras, on the other hand, never give me problems, and luckily that's the vast majority of 3D content.

Converged cameras is what I thought of when I read the OP too. Most movies are shot with parallel cameras, Avatar being a notable exception. From what I can see, a lot of documentaries were shot with the cameras converged. In all these cases (including Avatar) I find the 3D image to be slightly difficult to view at times. As I understand it, it would unavoidably be so if you're looking anywhere in the image other than the center where the cameras converged. Everywhere else is more or less distorted. 3D from parallel cameras, on the other hand, never give me problems, and luckily that's the vast majority of 3D content.

What? I can only think of one film off the top of my head that uses parallel cameras, and that's Beowulf. Every 3D film I own uses converged cameras, that's the industry standard. I think you're misunderstanding what the terms mean.

What the OP is referring to, based on what I read out of it, is extreme negative parallax caused by a convergence point too far away from what should be the center of focus. The objects closer to the camera become far too separated to ever make sense of. I've seen stuff in Under the Sea where the separation on-screen was several feet. Separation should never be more than a few inches on a normal TV, even for negative parallax (which has more "play room" than positive parallax).

Aren't both of these setups trying to achieve the same thing, parallel vs toed in? Theoretically I don't see how one can be better than the other, if post convergence is done in both methods. it's just a matter if it's done right.

Aren't both of these setups trying to achieve the same thing, parallel vs toed in? Theoretically I don't see how one can be better than the other, if post convergence is done in both methods. it's just a matter if it's done right.

@Devedander Thanx for the input...i confirm now that i am not crazy and this thread i opened seems useful for many of us; i already said that many times....BUT i REALLY REALLY don't understand why pro. reviewers don"t bother mentioning this issues...! they can't all be used to seeing weird parallax right ???

anyway unlike you i don't like to see documentary in 3D as i find it BAD for the eyes and not that great in general.

3D did not really take off....but 90% of tv's sold are 3D so it it here to stay...hopefully quality will become more and more interesting.

Converged cameras is what I thought of when I read the OP too. Most movies are shot with parallel cameras, Avatar being a notable exception. From what I can see, a lot of documentaries were shot with the cameras converged. In all these cases (including Avatar) I find the 3D image to be slightly difficult to view at times. As I understand it, it would unavoidably be so if you're looking anywhere in the image other than the center where the cameras converged. Everywhere else is more or less distorted. 3D from parallel cameras, on the other hand, never give me problems, and luckily that's the vast majority of 3D content.

Great info there.....before opening this TOPIC i have never heard of Converged & parallel cameras

So in other words converged are not as GOOD ? why do people use it ? especially a big name like IMAX ???? Are they OLD models ? or is it just less expensive ???? or easier to use perhaps ?

Also is the camera that IMPORTANT ? as we have seen some 2D conversions are STUNNING (titanic & pacific rim to name a few....); so my guess is that optimisation is also a HUGE issue....

What? I can only think of one film off the top of my head that uses parallel cameras, and that's Beowulf. Every 3D film I own uses converged cameras, that's the industry standard. I think you're misunderstanding what the terms mean.

What the OP is referring to, based on what I read out of it, is extreme negative parallax caused by a convergence point too far away from what should be the center of focus. The objects closer to the camera become far too separated to ever make sense of. I've seen stuff in Under the Sea where the separation on-screen was several feet. Separation should never be more than a few inches on a normal TV, even for negative parallax (which has more "play room" than positive parallax).

What are the pro's and cons of each camera type ?

Glad you confirm that under the sea is indeed PROBLEMATIC on many scenes i am no longer alone

I can only think of one film off the top of my head that uses parallel cameras, and that's Beowulf.

I believe I have a good understanding of parallel vs converged cameras, but I admit that this information (how exactly movies were shot) is not readily available. Please share it if you have it!

nenito2k...you ask good questions! I agree that Under the Sea has problems, and I've thought so since before reading this thread. In a few scenes, the background is separated on my 90" screen greater than the separation between my eyes, meaning that these scenes are essentially broken on large screens.

nenito2k...you ask good questions! I agree that Under the Sea has problems, and I've thought so since before reading this thread. In a few scenes, the background is separated on my 90" screen greater than the separation between my eyes, meaning that these scenes are essentially broken on large screens.

At least write a sentence so that people can understand the context and learn!

The image on the left is the distortion you get with significantly converged (aka "toe-in") cameras. The one on the right is what you get with parallel cameras (basically no distortion). With slightly converged cameras, you'd get something slightly in between.

At least write a sentence so that people can understand the context and learn!

The image on the left is the distortion you get with significantly converged (aka "toe-in") cameras. The one on the right is what you get with parallel cameras (basically no distortion). With slightly converged cameras, you'd get something slightly in between.

The example given above was obviously extreme in nature, but keep in mind though that in real life your eyes are converging and causing the perspective skew exaggerated on the left.

Cogito ergo sum makes a fundamental mistake because it ignores the implied existence of the narrator. Descartes might as well have said "A rose is red, therefore I am".

The example given above was obviously extreme in nature, but keep in mind though that in real life your eyes are converging and causing the perspective skew exaggerated on the left.

In real life we are unable to focus on anything other than the center of our vision. Our eyes are both our eyes and the cameras. The distortion can only be in our peripheral vision.

So when we're looking at a 3D image with converged cameras, it should look great when we're looking at what the cameras were converging on. It looks natural, and our peripheral vision, to the extent that our brains even care, is realistically distorted. But look elsewhere in the image, and the cameras don't follow. We can see the distortion in the center of our vision where it doesn't belong, and it won't look right.

The example given above was obviously extreme in nature, but keep in mind though that in real life your eyes are converging and causing the perspective skew exaggerated on the left.

In real life we are unable to focus on anything other than the center of our vision. Our eyes are both our eyes and the cameras. The distortion can only be in our peripheral vision.

You're confusing two issues.

Quote:

So when we're looking at a 3D image with converged cameras, it should look great when we're looking at what the cameras were converging on. It looks natural, and our peripheral vision, to the extent that our brains even care, is realistically distorted. But look elsewhere in the image, and the cameras don't follow. We can see the distortion in the center of our vision where it doesn't belong, and it won't look right.

I'm sorry, but this just is not correct. Even with parallel camera films the "cameras don't follow" as you put it. Yes, we focus on what's dead center in our eyes, but that also doesn't matter: Our eyes are free to reconverge regardless of whether or not the source is parallel or convergent.

With a converged source, it's not as though we're "locked" onto some converged object and cannot break away. If that were true then things shot in parallel would keep us locked at infinity.

If I can get my software reinstalled on my new Windows 7 machine later, I'll post some 3D renderings of mine here in SBS/cross-eye to show you the difference between parallel & convergent cameras. With convergent you are still able to pick and choose your objects, assuming that the director was nice and kept them all in focus....another reason that 3D movies IMO should be shot with no less than 3 cameras per mount.

From what I've read, most parallel rigs aren't true parallel anyway, meaning they use some form of image offset while shooting which would be similar to post convergence. Difference is, you have some convergence set up while shooting. And for most of us here shooting 3D at least with all in one rigs with twin lenses, would be using this method, dialing in the correct convergence point which will result in less post work and less time. Every article I've read about both methods claim to offer advantages while also posing limitations or new problems and that post convergence is ultimately required to get both methods comfortable. Neither offers a clear overall advantage. Parallel vs Toed In isn't really a new debate, it's been around for awhile.

i REALLY REALLY don't understand why pro. reviewers don"t bother mentioning this issues...! they can't all be used to seeing weird parallax right ???

There are two possibilities here:

1) It's a vast conspiracy. Everyone in the world sees the problem, but we all pretend not to just to frustrate you.
2) The issue you describe only affects a small minority of viewers, and you happen to be in that minority.

I'll leave it to you to decide which of these options is more likely than the other.

nenito2k - You say you're using a PS3 for 3D? Have you Gamed in 3D? Does the problem still exist??? I gamed in 3D for 16hrs straight with no problem on a DLP projector. Have you tried testing Crosseyed 3D? Crosseyed 3D doesn't even require a Display, only a side by side picture on paper, magazine etc. Even works on YouTube. Plenty of 3D on YouTube.

Even with parallel camera films the "cameras don't follow" as you put it. Yes, we focus on what's dead center in our eyes, but that also doesn't matter: Our eyes are free to reconverge regardless of whether or not the source is parallel or convergent.

I agree with this, so let me clarify. The problem is distortion. With converged cameras, there is vertical disparity introduced in the edges, which is problematic. It should be easy to see this in the images above. With the parallel camera 3D image, you can look and focus anywhere in the image and have no problem, no vertical disparity.

i do use ps3....please bear in mind that the numerous problems i mentioned exist only on some 3D scenes and various type of movies (animation, documentary etc...) i did watch many movies with flawless 3D: gravity, lorax, croods, titanic etc....
anyway, i did not yet try a 3d game, so can't comment on that; regarding cross eyed 3D...i never heard of it ! thanx but did not work on me, seems i did not get it

so what basically you say is that years after launching 3D bluray/theatre, 3D is still in the learning curve....and new techniques should be used to make it better....?
If so, than WE might have to wait FOR avatar 2 & 3! after all james cameron was to one to Reinvent 3D ! I am sure the sequels will RE-REinvente 3D....be it with converged or new generation camera

From what I've read, most parallel rigs aren't true parallel anyway, meaning they use some form of image offset while shooting which would be similar to post convergence. Difference is, you have some convergence set up while shooting. And for most of us here shooting 3D at least with all in one rigs with twin lenses, would be using this method, dialing in the correct convergence point which will result in less post work and less time. Every article I've read about both methods claim to offer advantages while also posing limitations or new problems and that post convergence is ultimately required to get both methods comfortable. Neither offers a clear overall advantage. Parallel vs Toed In isn't really a new debate, it's been around for awhile.

interesting....my guess is that 90% of people that watch 3D encounter the big issues we are speaking about since the Opening of this topic....but people assume that these problems ARE part of the 3D, hence many people not liking watching movies and describing it as "head hurting"; unfortunately.....

tell me, if converged and parallel cameras are not ideal....and both have issues.....is there any new type of camera (hello james cameron!) that will be released that will offer perfect 3D ? or should manufacturers INVENT another type of screen to resolve the matter ?